United States District Court, D. South Dakota, Southern Division
Lawrence L. Piersol United States District Judge
Leslie Johnson, is an inmate at the Mike Durfee State Prison
(MDSP) in Springfield, South Dakota. On March 30, 2017,
Johnson filed a pro se motion for temporary restraining order
and motion for preliminary injunction. Docket 1. On June 16,
2017, Johnson filed a complaint alleging several violations
of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Docket 9.
Johnson also moves for a court order to copy and preserve
video footage. Docket 13.
complaint generally concerns his disabilities and the
defendants' alleged failure to accommodate those
disabilities. Docket 9. He alleges that he is confined to a
wheelchair due to several medical conditions restricting his
mobility and that he has COPD that prevents him from being
around humidity. Id. at 2.
alleges that defendants fail to provide him access to
religious services. When Johnson tries to attend religious
services, he must sit in the rain, snow, or sub-zero
conditions while other inmates are counted. Id. at
2. If the service is held upstairs, he is unable to attend
because the chair lift routinely fail because it is faulty.
Id. at 4. Johnson alleges that the sidewalks are
regularly obstructed due to construction projects and
defendants fail to provide alternative routes. Id.
are several aspects of the MDSP that Johnson alleges are not
ADA compliant. Johnson alleges that the urinal in the general
population bathroom is not ADA complaint despite a recent
remodel. Id. at 4. During this remodel, Johnson
alleges that defendants refused to provide an accessible
route through a hallway. Id. at 6. Johnson alleges
that two fifty-five gallon trash cans and a shower chair
obstructed the sixty-inch-wide hallway. Id. Johnson
alleges that defendants cause him further "undue stress
and harm ... by placing a rubber mat in front of the ICE/Hot
water machine." Id. at 5. Smith alleges that
defendants could "apply a tape type anti-slipper
application to avoid the slippery spots, and still allow easy
access to the machine by [Johnson]." Instead, defendants
allegedly placed a rubber mat to comply with the ADA.
Id. Finally, Johnson alleges that defendants refuse
to provide ADA compliant phone cords or to provide him an ADA
compliant desk or writing table. Id. at 7.
alleges that defendants retaliated against Johnson when he
filed ADA complaints. Id. at 3. In one instance of
retaliation, defendants ordered the removal of protruding
items in the handicap bathroom. But Johnson alleges that only
three of the twenty-three objects were removed and those
items included the shelves used to place clothing on during a
shower, coat hooks, and two circulation fans. Id.
The fans were replaced with "a fake" exhaust fan.
Id. at 5. According to Johnson, "It (fan)
exhausts no where, except between the two walls. It does
nothing to eliminate the excessive humidity in the
bathroom/shower." Id. In a second instance of
retaliation, Johnson alleges that unit staff claimed Johnson
"was not handicap enough to use the regular Handicap
toilet, sink, mirror and anything else in the regular
handicap bathroom. She claims he is only entitled to use the
Handicap shower." In a third instance, Johnson alleges
that he suffered a verbal attack from defendant Rob Caruaha
on February 23, 2017. Id. at 6. Johnson alleges that
Caruaha, after he finished yelling, said "stop filing
grievances." Docket 9-15 at 2. Finally, Johnson alleges
that staff has encouraged other inmates to retaliate against
him. Id. at 2.
court must accept the well-pleaded allegations in the
complaint as true and draw all reasonable inferences in favor
of the non-moving party. Schriener v. Quicken Loans,
Inc., 114 F.3d 442, 444 (8th Cir. 2014). Civil rights
and pro se complaints must be liberally construed.
Erickson v. Pardus, 551 U.S. 89, 94 (2007) (citation
omitted); Bediako v. Stein Mart, Inc., 354 F.3d 835,
839 (8th Cir. 2004). Even with this construction, "a pro
se complaint must contain specific facts supporting its
conclusions." Martin v. Sargent, 780 F.2d 1334,
1337 (8th Cir. 1985); Ellis v. City of Minneapolis,
518 Fed.Appx. 502, 504 (8th Cir. 2013). Civil rights
complaints cannot be merely conclusory. Davis v.
Hall, 992 F.2d 151, 152 (8th Cir. 1993); Parker v.
Porter, 221 Fed.Appx. 481, 482 (8th Cir. 2007).
complaint "does not need detailed factual allegations
... [but] requires more than labels and conclusions, and a
formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action
will not do." Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550
U.S. 544, 555 (2007). "If a plaintiff cannot make the
requisite showing, dismissal is appropriate."
Abdullah v. Minnesota, 261 Fed.Appx. 926, 927 (8th
Cir. 2008); Beavers v. Lockhart, 755 F.2d 657, 663
(8th Cir. 1985). Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915A, the court must
screen prisoner complaints and dismiss them if they are
"(1) frivolous, malicious, or fail to state a claim
upon which relief may be granted; or (2) seek monetary
relief from a defendant who is immune from such relief."
28 U.S.C. § 1915A(b).
Screening Pursuant to § 1915A
named Dennis Daugaard and Misty Johnson as defendants. He
does not, however, plead any facts showing that these
defendants had any involvement in the alleged ADA violations.
Additionally, these defendants' names do not appear in
any of the numerous exhibits filed by Johnson. Thus, Johnson
fails to state a claim upon which relief may be granted as to